Evolutionists are having a hard time explaining why we are so good to each other. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Not true. We are good to each other for the same reason other social animals are good to each other. Our problem is not recognizing our limits that are biologically determined. It is when we attempt to function beyond our limits that we get into trouble, and civilizations are far beyond our biological limits and would not be possible without religion or a very good understanding of democracy.

Many people have "rebuked" you — christian2017

Rebuking is for dummies.

As long as I am rot refuted, they can show how dumb they are all they like.

Regards
DL

Many people have "rebuked" you
— christian2017

Rebuking is for dummies.

As long as I am rot refuted, they can show how dumb they are all they like.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

ok.

Not true. — Athena

Yes true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ADgh3yCSdM

I suppose the big problem that a
00:02
Darwinist places as I said before is to
00:05
explain empathy naturally altruism which
00:10
seems to go to run counter to our
00:13
Darwinian programming and it really does
00:16
seem as though we subjectively feel
00:19
empathy in a way that that naive
00:22
interpretation of Darwinism would think
00:24
that we shouldn't I mean we're we're too
00:26
nice for for Darwinian tastes would be
00:30
one way to put it I think it said it
00:32
will it will be a challenge but it is a
00:34
challenge to Darwinian stew explain why
00:37
we are so nice because starting out from
00:40
the assumption that our ancestors would
00:43
have been programmed if you like or not
00:45
if you don't to be nice towards relative
00:48
and towards reciprocate errs how come
00:51
when are nice to everybody and I think
00:53
that that's not that difficult to
00:54
explain because what natural selection
00:56
does is to put into brains rules of
01:00
thumb it doesn't say look after the
01:02
interests of your selfish genes in a
01:03
cognitive way if it did then we'd all be
01:05
a lot nastier than than we are what
01:07
natural selection does is put into
01:09
brains rules of thumb which might be of
01:12
the form be nice to any small squawking
01:16
objects in your nest if you happen to be
01:18
a bird now in a human case we used to
01:20
live in small bands small villages where
01:23
most of the people that you met as all
01:25
the people you ever met would be
01:26
relatives and would be people you meet
01:28
again and again and therefore it would
01:30
be in a position to reciprocate so the
01:32
rule of thumb would have been be nice to
01:34
everyone you meet
01:36
now that's translated into today where
01:39
we're cultural beings where we live in
01:40
large cities we're no longer living in
01:42
small villages or small bands it's no
01:44
longer true that everybody you meet is a
01:47
relative or a potential reciprocate er
01:48
but the rule of thumb doesn't know that
01:50
why should it just as the rule of thumb
01:52
be lustful towards members of the
01:54
opposite sex works because in nature
01:58
back then there was no contraception now
02:01
there is contraception and so the the
02:03
rule of thumb just plain be lustful
02:04
doesn't work anymore but it's still
02:06
there we still feel the lust in the same
02:09
way we still feel the lust to be nice
02:11
because that's what natural selection
02:13
built into us at a time when being nice
02:16
meant being nice to everybody who meant
02:18
if everybody would ever meet now
02:21
nowadays we live in big cities but the
02:23
rule of thumb is still there that's a
02:25
very very simplified account but that's
02:27
the kind of way in which a Darwinian
02:29
might argue for why we're as nice as we
02:32
are we certainly much do to nice in a
02:34
naive sense

This a poor way to get information to you.

I will not do it often and might have to ignore some of your posts till you can view links.

Regards
DL

christian2017
944
↪Frank Apisa

"Do you believe in aliens?" is equivalent to "Do you believe in cheese?". If you believe in cheese and or aliens than you either believe that aliens or cheese exist. How could i have worded that better? — christian2017

Well...if you were asking him if he thought that aliens (other sentient beings) exist on other planets, you could have written, "Do you suppose that there are other sentient beings that exist on other planets?"

Or...if you were asking about whether aliens from other planets have visited planet Earth at some point, you might have worded it, "Do you suppose that aliens from other planets have visited Earth at some point?"

Or...if you were asking about whether aliens from other planets are here now studying our culture unobserved, you might have worded it, "Do you suppose that aliens from other planets are here now studying our culture unobserved?

As it is, I have no idea of what you were asking...and still don't.

We have come a long way since Darwin. You might want to read "Science of Good and Evil" before you defend your argument that evolutionists can't explain our good and our bad behavior.

Now it is nap time. :yawn: Thinking requires more energy than most the things we do, and we programmed to not think too much.

Its a common cliche. "Do you believe in aliens?". Look up the common cliche on the internet.

Do you believe in cheese?

yes

that person believes that cheese exist.

Do you believe in aliens?

yes

that person believes in that aliens exist.

Once again its a common cliche.

I actually stated this earlier.

Okay...I agree. It is a common cliche.

But you asked me a question...and the question was, "How could i have worded that better?"

I answered that question. Essentially I am saying that a better way would have been NOT to use a cliche...and then I gave you three "BETTER" ways of asking whatever it is you were asking. I still do not know. Which of the three "better" ways of asking whatever it is you were asking...were you actually asking?

Yes...it is a common cliche...but the "cliche" does not actually give an idea of what you actually were asking.

Okay...I agree. It is a common cliche.

But you asked me a question...and the question was, "How could i have worded that better?"

I answered that question. Essentially I am saying that a better way would have been NOT to use a cliche...and then I gave you three "BETTER" ways of asking whatever it is you were asking. I still do not know. Which of the three "better" ways of asking whatever it is you were asking...were you actually asking?

Yes...it is a common cliche...but the "cliche" does not actually give an idea of what you actually were asking. — Frank Apisa

You asked me the question of why i didn't word it differently of "Do you believe in Aliens?"

Perhaps you come from a different generation so you aren't familiar with "Do you believe in Aliens?"

They're out the maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!

You asked me the question of why i didn't word it differently of "Do you believe in Aliens?" — christian2017

YES!

I was trying to find out what you were asking.

I actually asked you, "What on Earth does "believe in aliens" mean to you?"

I was (AM) trying to find out what the hell you were asking.

I still do not know.

Which of the three possible questions I offered...were you asking?

christian2017
954
↪Frank Apisa

Perhaps you come from a different generation so you aren't familiar with "Do you believe in Aliens?" — christian2017

I may be from a different generation...but I still do not know what you were asking. I am beginning to think you do not know what you were asking either.

They're out the maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan! — Christian

Ummm...what does that mean?

christian2017
944
↪Frank Apisa

"Do you believe in aliens?" is equivalent to "Do you believe in cheese?". If you believe in cheese and or aliens than you either believe that aliens or cheese exist. How could i have worded that better?
— christian2017

Well...if you were asking him if he thought that aliens (other sentient beings) exist on other planets, you could have written, "Do you suppose that there are other sentient beings that exist on other planets?"

Or...if you were asking about whether aliens from other planets have visited planet Earth at some point, you might have worded it, "Do you suppose that aliens from other planets have visited Earth at some point?"

Or...if you were asking about whether aliens from other planets are here now studying our culture unobserved, you might have worded it, "Do you suppose that aliens from other planets are here now studying our culture unobserved?

As it is, I have no idea of what you were asking...and still don't. — Frank Apisa

Do you believe in aliens? (the cliche)

Can actually mean all three of these.

Me and the bishop have a history, so i don't always have real indepth conversations with him. He usually ignores alot of the stuff i say and he ignore alot of the stuff other people say.

Very often when talking to someone, people will keep the conversation light and seemingly uncomplex to see if the other person wants to talk about cheese or aliens.

People don't like to type things they don't want to type and they don't like to read things that are wordy. We live in a Meme culture but in my defense i do read as much as most of the people this forum.

They're out the maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!
— Christian

Ummm...what does that mean? — Frank Apisa

It was a joke. Thats a common cliche from movies where the guy who appears to be a hippie and strung out on drugs says exactly that. I agree with my hippie friend that aliens probably do exist.

Insert gays and women harmed by homophobic and misogynous religions to this quote. You should get an idea of what you should be doing with the homophobic and misogynous mainstream religions if you live by the golden rule. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I really see only one that is homophobic and misogynous. The plural is virtue signalling. Can´t upset the echo chamber, can we now.

Do you see a cutting remark in that quote? I could be wrong, but that appears to be a disrespectful comment, a cutting remark. That is what I mean by your post carry a knife. Often they come with cutting comments. — Athena

Sorry, I still do not know what you are prattling about. As I said, I am interested in discussing topics, not people.

christian2017
965
They're out the maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!
— Christian

Ummm...what does that mean?
— Frank Apisa

It was a joke. Thats a common cliche from movies where the guy who appears to be a hippie and strung out on drugs says exactly that. I agree with my hippie friend that aliens probably do exist. — christian2017

I get it now.

I should have read that with the "out the" as "out there"...right? I honestly missed that.

Anyway...the reason I asked about the "Do you believe in aliens"...had to do mostly with the use of the convention "believe in"...rather than the "aliens" part. I knew approximately where you were going, but the "believe in" thingy fucks up so many conversations...I though I would explore it with you.

You were kind. I was being a bit abrasive...and you were not plugging in.

I am an advocate for never using the "believe in" construct. The "Do you believe in God" is a particular pain in my ass. It is a world apart from the more specific, "Do you 'believe' it is more likely that at least one god exists...or do you 'believe' it is more likely that none exist?"

Any chance I get to question someone using the convention...I ask it. You used it...so I asked you.

Thanks for going along with it...and thanks for the courtesy.

christian2017
965
They're out the maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!
— Christian

Ummm...what does that mean?
— Frank Apisa

It was a joke. Thats a common cliche from movies where the guy who appears to be a hippie and strung out on drugs says exactly that. I agree with my hippie friend that aliens probably do exist.
— christian2017

I get it now.

I should have read that with the "out the" as "out there"...right? I honestly missed that.

Anyway...the reason I asked about the "Do you believe in aliens"...had to do mostly with the use of the convention "believe in"...rather than the "aliens" part. I knew approximately where you were going, but the "believe in" thingy fucks up so many conversations...I though I would explore it with you.

You were kind. I was being a bit abrasive...and you were not plugging in.

I am an advocate for never using the "believe in" construct. The "Do you believe in God" is a particular pain in my ass. It is a world apart from the more specific, "Do you 'believe' it is more likely that at least one god exists...or do you 'believe' it is more likely that none exist?"

Any chance I get to question someone using the convention...I ask it. You used it...so I asked you.

Thanks for going along with it...and thanks for the courtesy. — Frank Apisa

I go on this site so that i drink less alcohol. I rarely plug in when i'm not at work.

Thank you for your service, Sir!

The moral of the story does not reveal the will of God; only the directions of God. It would have been right by God to in any case pertaining to good and evil, provide the option to learn, while weighing the positive and negative against each other in the probability for the endeavor to be undertaken. It is then right for the humans involved to do whatever they so desire. God's will cannot be eluded. That is the very fundament of the definition of what a God is.

The only moral I conclude is conduced between the Jewish and Christian view. There is none. Humanity was given an option and it was fair by terms of balance between the created and its creator. This rather adheres to the Muslim view of God than any other; where only subservience to God's will exists. Do what you will, it will never ever be outside of the scope of God's will in any regard that it might succeed.

The evil resides in the multitude of pain that would unleash from eating the fruit, in order to discern the difference between good and evil. It in itself is not evil; although probably good. It all depends on your take on whether life itself is good or bad in its fullness. Given the depiction we have of God, I know we all can be certain given the context for the morality that it was the right call. Love life or not is rather the ultimate question here.

If you can imagine being a God - then God condones the imagination. No more, no less. If all the while you can be a God; then congratulations - God are on your side. Fabled or not - this is it, right?

I expect religion to keep being religion. It is the fabling about God one way or another. I don't expect God to be more found in it than in any other area. It wouldn't be a very interesting God to fable about if all there was to it is religion. We can find treasures that belongs to any other area from all areas. God is the greatest decentralization of all. To monopolize it whatsoever is hearsay to a potential end of God, but never God itself. A God - for sure. I don't believe in limiting the almighty; not by moral, nor by prestige or even number.

My answer to the question is thus: Neither, nor neither and either. A counter-question I pose is: What would you make of it? In any case possible, it would be a gift from God - I deem that nothing more than a blessing.

If YHWH murdered Adam and Eve for this, I congratulate us. Would you have ever asked yourself the immeasurable question about your own divinity without the notion? That's just the way it is. Although murdered they were not in any technical sense. They were merely prohibited to eat from the tree of life. Makes sense to first know good from evil before that decision to be made either way. Given a real scenario, the prospect of eating the fruit will have reflected the issue in terms of becoming aware that it was supposedly either good or evil and that it could not be known to any conclusion without first partaking of the fruit. The consequences were realized.

The importance for humanity with regards to religion is not the means to a measure, but the measure of the means. I will happily be a bad example if need be. Fear of being a subject to scrutiny is not a good reason to turn your back on reality. I'm with God on this one and I do not believe that He made anyone anything - not good, nor evil or anything else. Be what you want - no-one else can. I know I am.

Best wishes,
EL

Not true. We are good to each other for the same reason other social animals are good to each other. — Athena

That is is correct. Empathy and unselfish behaviour exists in all evolved species that live in societies.

That is is correct. Empathy and unselfish behaviour exists in all evolved species that live in societies. — Nobeernolife

I am glad we could agree on something.

Quite obviously only that which benefits our survival can promote the life of our species and if we are ignorant and make bad choices, death is the consequence. I think at this point in time we can not be sure our species will survive another thousand years.

Hopefully to a consolation: I am sure to be at the cradle of an eternal civilization. We have much to consolidate ourselves with, but our wills are strong and intent on living together. We are gonna make it.

You are right that I replied thinking intent. I am a cranky old bastard is my only defence, as well as having had to correct way too many Christians and not being patient enough to wal people through it. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I'm happy to hear this sort of frank acknowledgment, all too rare in conversations like these.

I'm getting crankier and grayer too. And the force of repetition over decades of conversation naturally tends to prejudice our interpretations of the statements of our interlocutors. Perhaps especially when we're conversing through these boxes.

I try to shake it off. Remind myself to approach these conversations as rituals, another set of opportunities to practice mindfulness, sincerity, and compassion, along with the art of philosophical discourse. It's a whole attitude, a whole psychophysical activity, not merely a stream of words, at issue in the practice of right speaking.

Only that it is stupid to read myths literally and that the ancients were brighter than literalist fools. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I agree it's preferable, and more instructive, to read many myths figuratively.

As I've suggested, I'm not sure all ancients did not make literal interpretations of myths, nor that the distinction between literal and figurative interpretation was clear to all of them, and understood in the same way by all of them.

I suspect you and I may differ in application and characterization of the distinction between literal and figurative interpretation. No wonder then if ancient people divided from each other by great distances in time and place also varied in their customs of interpretation.

It is common and wrong and as I said, is likely designed to downplay what was at stake. We can all live without an apple. We cannot live without the education that knowing good and evil gives us.

Apple trees give apples to eat. Orange trees give oranges. Knowledge trees give knowledge and in our dualistic world, that is the knowledge of good and evil. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Your initial remarks included the statement "I am not a literal reader of this myth". I took this statement to indicate that you interpret the myth figuratively, not literally.

How does it impair a figurative reading of the myth, for the same figure in the myth to be interpreted as both a "fruit tree" and a "knowledge tree"?

How is such a figurative reading ruled out by your interpretation of the text?

No. There are a number of ideologies from right wing loonies to left wing progressives. There is also the Gnostic Christian view that is a universalist ideology which makes it superior to all cults or sects that posit a heaven and hell. Hell would be god admitting to being an incompetent creator who cannot create a majority of good souls. Note how scriptures say that the vast majority of us will take the wide road to he'll while only the few will reach the narrow path to heaven. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Do you mean to say that Gnostic Christian philosophy posits a heaven and hell, but is superior to all other sects that posit a heaven and hell because it is the only such sect that is universalist? Or do you mean to say that Gnostic Christian philosophy, as a form of universalist ideology, does not posit a heaven and hell, and therefore is superior to all the sects that do posit a heaven and hell?

Why do you say the universalist ideology is superior?

I suppose I'm sympathetic to the generalizing tendency in universalism, though I'm not sure it goes far enough in my view.

Would you care to further characterize universalism, Gnostic Christian philosophy, and their relation?

If Christians did as the bible bids, they would all reject that genocide from Yahweh is good and would become honest and more moral Gnostic Christians that would fry Yahweh's genocidal ass. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Who believes that genocide is good?

I cannot think of any issue or knowledge that is not subject to being good or evil. I can substitute those words with right or wrong as analogies without conflict.

Can you name anything that is not subject to those term, whichever ones you prefer? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I look forward to hearing how you apply these terms.

Consider the Sun, or the mass of the Sun, or the fact that the Sun is more massive than the Earth.

Do we say the Sun is right and good, and that the mass of the Sun is right and good? But in that case, I suppose everything that exists, and every state of affairs, should be called right and good, simply by virtue of its existence. But then what significance is there in the distinction between "being" or "existing" on the one hand, and "right" and "good" on the other?

As to who should think and decide on what is good and what is evil. These go together

Gen3;22 Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil;

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

The first tells us we know good from evil and the other tells us to judge all issues for ourselves. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I suggest that simple reflection on ordinary experience is sufficient to persuade us that human beings and at least some other animals have a capacity to recognize good and bad and right and wrong. Of course among us this capacity is cultivated in widely divergent ways across various cultural contexts, and is characterized in different ways in various traditional narratives associated with what we might call spiritual experience, practice, and belief.

Test all things; hold fast what is good. This maxim might belong to a characterization of scientific method, among other sorts of method or practice.

How do you coordinate concepts of truth and objectivity with the "tests" and "good" indicated in such a maxim?

How do you interpret the phrase "like one of Us" in its original context?

Yahweh already knew man would sin as he had already chosen Jesus as the sacrifice to redeem man. That's scripture. As to trials or obstacles, an omnipotent god would already know the outcome of all tests. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

That's how I would put it, if I were writing the story myself, given the premise of an omniscient and omnipotent deity.

But then I'm still not sure how to interpret your earlier remark:

In the myth, Yahweh ties knowing the knowledge of good and evil to our developing a moral sense and the command tried to prevent that.

Strange that when the Christian ideology says that we should let god do tour thinking for us.

A great way to make people stupid and unable to think for themselves, even as scriptures tell us to judge all things. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Surely we won't say the command "tried to prevent" the outcome the commander already knew as a matter of fact?

Perhaps in this remark, too, you're objecting to someone else's interpretation of the myth?

We have free will to the limits of physics and nature but have no choice in being sinners. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Can you flesh out the relevant conception of sin here?

Is it just any sort of wrongdoing?

I'm inclined to agree that animals like us begin and end in ignorance, error, and confusion. Even where we understand things well enough for own purposes, it's hard for us to straighten out our own motives, desires, intentions, and actions.

Still it seems we have a rare opportunity in this precious human birth.

Nature causes us to evolve and either compete of cooperate at all times. When we cooperate, we cause no particular harm, but when we compete, the loser will think evil has befallen him. All the human to human evil is thus just a small evil within the greater good of our not going extinct.

That view is why I have no problem of evil. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Likewise, events that make us extinct or that bring us closer to extinction are only "small evils" within some greater good? Or is this somehow where you draw the line on good and evil, the survival of biological species or narrowly circumscribed lineages? Is it only the humans to which such judgments of good and evil pertain, or do you apply the same principles to the good of each biological species or lineage?

I don't have a problem of evil in the traditional sense, because I don't affirm any conception of an omniscient or omnipotent deity. Neither do I put much emphasis on the survival of species or lineages in my discourses on morality.

Am I right to infer that you intend for the Darwinian conception of good and evil you've just sketched to resolve or dissolve the problem of evil, given a conception of an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent deity?

No, and yes.

No. The conception is mine. I cannot speak for Darwin.

Yes. Be it a god or nature, there is no conflict in attributing all human to human evil to our need to compete and create losers.

To your question on sin. Humans are the only beings that can have an evil intent and thus sin. Mens rea in secular law agrees.

Sin is a small evil within a greater good, --- given that that greater good is the survival of humankind, --- who are the creators of souls.

This applies to you and me as well.

Regards
DL

Hopefully to a consolation: I am sure to be at the cradle of an eternal civilization. We have much to consolidate ourselves with, but our wills are strong and intent on living together. We are gonna make it. — Eleonora

:chin: What do you think makes us civilized?

Honestly? Jesus Christ - I reckon. I put all my hopes in that basket.

Honestly? Jesus Christ - I reckon. I put all my hopes in that basket. — Eleonora

That is not how I believe. I think that belief is very problematic so I must speak against it, but I hesitate to do that because I know without that belief some people could not function. This is a real dilemma for me wanting people to have a better understanding of humans and a more helpful understanding or reality, and not wanting to hurt those who really need their faith in God, Allah, Jesus, Hindu gods. ect.. Can we compromise? There are civilizations without Christianity, right?

This is a real dilemma — Athena

No compromise. I do however concur about civilizations presuming to exist without Christianity. I do not recognize any to exist without Christ however. Were we to consider Christianity the Church of Christ, it is about to figure out where Jesus fits into the picture. Whether he exists or not is non-essential for whichever conclusions we might derive at. According to Christianity, be it the church of Christ or not - Jesus said: "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."; John 13:35. Whoever coined that phrase; is Christ in my opinion. Everything around it is mere happenstance.

So is there really civilization without Christianity? Be it by happenstance or a blessing by God. Being a Christian is about following Jesus and this is it.